Understanding the Role of Peer Review

Anonymous peer review is a perfect occasion for academic bullies to belittle colleagues. Unfortunately, no one talks about it. When academics wish to publish their articles in scientific journals, they must navigate a process that involves: 1. Submitting their article through a portal. 2. An editor reads the article to determine if it is a suitable fit or good enough to be sent to peer reviewers, who are experts in the field. 3. The article is either rejected by the editor (a desk rejection) or sent to three experts who will review it anonymously (only the editor knows the reviewers; their names will be removed when their reviews are sent to the article's author). 4. Reviewers read the article and decide whether it should be 1) accepted as is (this rarely occurs), 2) revised and allowed to be resubmitted (commonly referred to as revise and resubmit or R & R), or 3) rejected. 5. The editor receives the three reviews and makes a final decision on the article. 6. The author receives the editor's decision and the anonymous reviewers' comments. Professors operate within a publish-or-perish work culture. Some universities require their professors to produce a certain number of publications each year. Publications lead to obtaining research grants and tenure. Therefore, the peer-review process is almost never contested by authors, giving reviewers and editors much power in their roles. Behind every article are years of writing research projects, collecting data, supervising students, discussing with colleagues, reviewing the literature, and analyzing data. Submitting one's work for evaluation is a stressful process that leaves authors vulnerable to the feedback provided by reviewers. While some reviewers view their role as assisting science and scientists, others perceive it as an opportunity to belittle others, take a political stance, promote their personal agenda, and openly attack the author and their work. Let me be clear, tough reviews are not easy to receive. However, there is a difference between being critical while making suggestions for improvement and attacking someone. I have had multiple discussions over the years with colleagues and my students about "nasty" reviews. No one dares to talk about the psychological impact of receiving these "nasty" comments. Many people feel discouraged, hurt, anxious, and angry; some may even question the relevance of their work and their abilities as researchers. "It's part of the game" is something we hear often. It should not be. Bullying is bullying, no matter where it happens. Behind the article lies an academic, a person. Reviews matter. They provide much-needed feedback to help us grow as academics. However, when the feedback is aggressive and belittling, it serves no one. Anonymous peer reviews are an integral part of an academic career. It should be a safe space where ideas are challenged healthily and respectfully. Take care of yourself and the people around you 💗

On peer review as a virtuous learning cycle. One of the hardest lessons I learned as an early-career academic was the art of virtuous reviewing. Early in my career, I treated reviewing as pointing out flaws - really, as gatekeeping. Then. I attended a session held by Detmar Straub at The PhD Project. At the time, Det was not yet the EIC of MIS Quarterly. But. He foreshadowed what he espoused as EIC. Good peer review is a virtuous cycle. What does that mean? Good academic peer review should do more than identify flaws. It should evoke double-loop learning. Det argued that means the process should not only help authors fix problems in a paper. It should also help them rethink assumptions, sharpen theory, improve methods, and clarify the contribution. But. He placed the onus for virtuous cycles not only on editors and reviewers. Det asserted to the audience, that authors have an obligation to learn from review. Not every comment will be right. Not every suggestion should be followed. But every serious reviewer comment deserves reflection. From him, I learned that the author’s job is to ask: What is this feedback revealing about how the work is being read, understood, and evaluated? To make that possible, Det asserted that reviewers have an obligation to offer constructive feedback. The goal is not to prove the author wrong. The goal is to help the work become stronger. Good reviews explain what is unclear, why it matters, and what kind of revision would improve the paper. This assertion changed my view of reviewing. I pivoted from gatekeeping to building. While sometimes negative, I tried to make sure that every review included content that authors could use to improve their work. Det also changed my understanding of editors. He explained that editors have a responsibility to protect and encourage this learning cycle. They set the tone. They should guide reviewers toward developmental feedback and help authors see the path forward, especially when reviews are mixed, difficult, or blunt. When you step back and look at the big picture, what Detmar taught in the early 2000s remains relevant today. A bad peer review means you submitted an idea and were told it was wrong. Good peer review means you submitted an idea, can clearly see what we learned from the review package, and can see how I can improve my work and how I can possibly move the conversation forward. That is when peer review becomes a virtuous cycle. And that. Is when you as an author and a reviewer truly become part of the editorial process. Best of luck! #academicjourney

Today I’m starting a short series called “Notes from an Associate Editor” (#NotesFromAnAssociateEditor), sharing reflections on how scientific publishing actually works (at least from my own experience). 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗘𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 #01 Many researchers imagine that editors simply accept or reject papers. In reality, the role is much more complex. Editors act as “connectors” between authors, reviewers, and the scientific community. We evaluate whether a manuscript fits the journal scope, identify appropriate reviewers, interpret sometimes conflicting reviews (yes! they exist, and in great numbers!), and ensure that the final decision reflects both scientific rigor and fairness. Most of this work happens quietly and anonymously, and it is a day-by-day activity. A very important detail is that a well-functioning editorial process depends on trust between all participants in the system. For authors, a few things help enormously: • submit manuscripts that clearly state their research contribution • make data and methods publicly accessible • respond constructively to reviewer comments Peer review is not perfect, but it remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to maintain scientific quality. In my view, one of the main tasks for an editor at the very beginning of the process is to ensure that the blind part of peer review (where authors do not know who the reviewers are) does not contain hidden conflicts of interest. In practice, this often involves conducting a careful search on the academic background and publication history of both authors and reviewers. The journal submission system helps a lot. But since starting in this position last year, I have also been developing my own tools to search deeper and give me greater confidence in my editorial decisions. What part of the peer review process do you think researchers understand the least? #PeerReview #NotesFromAnAssociateEditor #AcademicPublishing #OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity Note: the sketch in the figure was generated with AI based on my own notes about the editorial workflow.

🎓✍️ Dear PhD Scholar: Understanding the Peer Review Process- Step-by-Step Breakdown with Tips 1. Manuscript Submission 📌 What Happens: Author submits the manuscript via the journal’s online system. #Tips:Ensure your manuscript matches the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. Include a clear cover letter summarizing your key findings. 2. Editorial Screening (Desk Review) 📌 What Happens: Editor checks for fit, novelty, and basic quality before peer review. #Tips: Avoid desk rejection by highlighting why your study matters in the abstract and introduction. Fix language and structure issues before submission. 3. Assignment to Reviewers 📌 What Happens: Editor invites 2–3 reviewers who are experts in the field. #Tips: Suggest potential reviewers (with no conflicts of interest) in your cover letter. Reviewers are often chosen from references you cite, so cite wisely. 4. Peer Review Process 📌 What Happens: Reviewers evaluate your manuscript for scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance. #Tips: Peer review may be single-blind, double-blind, or open — know which type the journal uses. Be prepared for constructive criticism — it’s normal, not personal. 5. Editorial Decision (Accept / Revise / Reject) 📌 What Happens: Editor decides based on reviewer feedback. #Tips: A “Revise and Resubmit” (R&R) is positive — use reviewer comments to improve your paper. If rejected, don’t despair. Many great papers are revised multiple times or published elsewhere. 6. Author Revisions 📌 What Happens: Authors revise the manuscript and respond to reviewer comments. #Tips: Be polite and thorough in your response letter. Use a point-by-point reply format addressing each comment. 7. Re-Review (if required) 📌 What Happens: Revised manuscript may be sent to original reviewers or new ones. #Tips: If the editor handles the decision without new review, they are checking if you followed advice well. Stay transparent if you disagree with a reviewer (justify scientifically and respectfully). 8. Final Decision 📌 What Happens: The editor sends a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revisions, or Reject. #Tips: Celebrate if accepted! If minor issues remain, respond quickly and carefully. 9. Production & Publication 📌 What Happens: Your accepted paper goes through proofing, typesetting, and publishing. #Tips: Carefully check proofs for errors — especially names, figures, and data. Promote your work post-publication via research networks, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google Scholar. 👉Read recent articles from your target journal to align with their tone and standards. 👉Keep a submission tracker with dates, status, and next actions. 👉 Use tools like Publons to track your own peer reviews and build your reviewer profile. 😊Happy Researching & Best of Luck, Future Scholars! 👍 #PhD #Research #publication #Journal #PostdocLife #PhDSkills #ThesisWriting #AcademicMentorship #ResearchTips #LinkedIn #Academic

Most researchers are trained to write papers. Very few are formally trained to review them. Yet peer review is one of the most influential mechanisms in academia. A weak review can delay good science. A superficial review can allow poor science to pass. And an unprofessional review can discourage early-career researchers unnecessarily. Here is the uncomfortable reality of peer review today: 👉 Many researchers become reviewers without formal training 👉 Some reviews focus on opinion rather than scientific evidence 👉 Editors increasingly struggle to find qualified and available reviewers 👉 Poorly structured reviews often create confusion instead of clarity Despite this, peer review remains one of the core pillars of scientific publishing. In this video, I explain how to review a scientific paper systematically, professionally, and ethically. 🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://lnkd.in/dSdkU_fq 🔍 What many researchers misunderstand about peer review • Reviewing is not about rejecting papers • A reviewer is not a copy editor or a gatekeeper of personal preferences • Critical comments must be evidence-based and constructive • The goal is to improve the manuscript and support editorial decision-making 🎯 What this video explains This episode walks through the full peer review process step by step: • how to decide whether to accept or decline a review invitation • how to assess originality, methodology, and scientific rigor • how to evaluate each section of a manuscript systematically • how to identify major versus minor concerns • how to write a structured and constructive reviewer report • how to remain professional, ethical, and objective throughout the process 🧠 Key insight A good review does not just judge a paper. It improves it. Strong reviewers help authors strengthen their research, assist editors in making informed decisions, and contribute to the integrity of science itself. 📚 Part of the playlist: Reviewers & Editors: Roles and Responsibilities 🎥 Watch the video: 👉 https://lnkd.in/dSdkU_fq 📚 Learn more about our research at SBD Lab – University of Liège 💻 Subscribe to my newsletter Newsletter 🅱️ Bilibili Channel 🎬 YouTube Channel 🌐 Explore previous posts and resources at ShadyAttia.org 🔗 Follow all my professional links, including WeChat 🟩💬 微信 Professional Links Hub 💬 What is the most difficult part of reviewing a scientific paper in your experience? #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #ScientificWriting #ResearchIntegrity #PhDlife #PostdocLife #EarlyCareerResearchers #Reviewer #ResearchMethods #Editors #AcademicCareer #ScientificPublishing

The first time I was invited to review for a highly prestigious journal, I panicked a little. I was in my third year of PhD. So I did what many of us do when we don’t want to get things wrong: I read several strong papers on peer review, I watched trainings on the Elsevier Research Academy, I studied how top reviews were structured, I spoke to my supervisor for guidance and I approached the manuscript meticulously. A few weeks later, I received a recognized reviewer badge🎉. Then another invitation came from the same journal a few months later. And then I realized something uncomfortable. I had forgotten the exact process I used the first time. So I had to start again – re-reading guidance documents, revisiting best practices and reconstructing my approach. It was time-consuming. That’s when I decided to create a clear, step-by-step peer review guide that I could use every single time. I’ve been using it ever since. I know there is no single “correct” way to review a paper. But this guide is built on the structured approaches used by high-quality reviewers, including recipients of Excellent Reviewer awards across disciplines. I believe it can help PhD students, first-time reviewers, early-career researchers and anyone who wants to produce rigorous, fair, and impactful reviews. And here’s something I wish someone had emphasized earlier: Reviewing is not just service, it is professional development. When done well, peer review helps you to sharpen your critical thinking, recognize methodological weaknesses faster, improve your own manuscript writing, understand what editors value and build credibility in your field. Here’s the core structure I follow: 👉 Before accepting to review, ask yourself: ✔ Do I have the right expertise? ✔ Do I have enough time? ✔ Are there any conflicts of interest? ✔ Can I maintain confidentiality? 👉 During the review (Read more than once): 1️ First read – Big picture What is the research question? Why does it matter? Is it publishable in principle? 2️ Second read – Deep evaluation Are the methods sound? Is the data sufficient? Are the conclusions supported? Also evaluate rigor, ethics, clarity and structure. Clearly separate major vs minor issues. 👉 When writing your review: ✔️ Short summary and overall assessment ✔️ Major issues (publishability-level problems) ✔️ Minor issues (improvement suggestions) ✔️ Clear, aligned recommendation Peer review is not just gatekeeping. It’s stewardship of science. A good review is rigorous, fair, constructive, specific, evidence-based and respectful. I’ve attached the full step-by-step guide to the post. I hope it supports your next review invitation. If you’re an experienced reviewer, what advice would you give someone reviewing for the first time? If you just received your first review invitation today, what would help you feel confident to begin? #EmpoweringEarlyCareerProfessionals #PeerReview #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearcher #AcademicLife #ResearchIntegrity

Peer reviewing is a voluntary task, but it’s also one of the most critical responsibilities in academia. It requires time, expertise, care, and a strong sense of academic integrity. And yet, very few of us were ever formally trained for it. We often learn by doing—or by watching others—frequently under pressure and without much guidance. Some of my PhD students are now receiving their first invitations to review papers—a major milestone in their academic journey! But naturally, they're unsure where to start. So, what do I recommend they keep in mind when stepping into this role? ✅ 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘂𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 Before diving into the review, understand the manuscript's type and check the journal’s specific guidelines for that category. This will help you apply the appropriate evaluation criteria. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲) 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 Feedback should be direct, respectful, and aimed at helping the authors improve their work. Even when identifying significant flaws, your tone should remain collegial—remember, you're offering support, not judgment. Talk to the authors in the same way you would like a reviewer to talk to you when the paper under evaluation is yours! ✅ 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 Don't get overly focused on grammatical issues. Your role is to assess ideas, methodology, overall clarity, logic, and contributions. ✅ 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 Use headings or bullet points to separate your feedback into major comments (e.g., theoretical gaps, methodological concerns) and minor comments (e.g., missing references, formatting issues). This structure helps authors understand your review more easily. ✅ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘆 Don’t rush through a review, but also avoid perfectionism. Aim for a thorough yet timely response—delayed reviews stall the entire publication process. Personally, I always write a draft and then wait a day or two before revisiting it. Coming back with a fresh perspective helps me refine my comments. ✅ 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 If the paper is outside your expertise, or you’re unable to review it within the requested time frame, it’s best to decline. The integrity of the review process depends on the match between reviewers and subject matter. ✅ 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Ask yourself: Does this manuscript make a meaningful contribution to the field, from a theoretical perspective and in managerial, practical, and/or policy terms? Sometimes a messy draft still holds valuable insights that are worth refining. 👇 [The list continues in the comments] #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearchers #AcademicTips #ResearchCommunity #Reviewers #ScholarlyPublishing #ResponsibleResearch #ReviewerGuidance #AcademicSupport #PublishingAdvice

How to review the research article ? Peer reviewing is a critical responsibility in academia and publishing. It ensures the integrity and quality of research while building credibility in your field. Here are some top tips for reviewers: ✅ Dos for Effective Peer Review 1️⃣ Summarize with Clarity Begin by summarizing the article in a short paragraph to demonstrate understanding of the research. 2️⃣ Focus on Novelty Highlight whether the research is novel, impactful, and contributes to the knowledge base. 3️⃣ Provide Specific Feedback Use clearly defined comments to address aspects like the title, abstract, methodology, and results. 4️⃣ Assess Methodologies Carefully review the methodology, statistical data, and conclusions to ensure accuracy and sustainability. 5️⃣ Check for Ethical Compliance Raise concerns about plagiarism or falsification with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. 6️⃣ Avoid Bias Be conscious of unconscious biases that might influence your review. 🚫 Don’ts to Avoid Pitfalls ❌ Skip Language Critique Focus on research soundness rather than grammar or layout issues. ❌ Avoid Ad-Hominem Comments Keep feedback professional and refrain from personal remarks. ❌ Reject Alternative Perspectives Be open to theories that may differ from your opinions. ❌ Maintain Confidentiality Don’t share manuscripts or reviews without editor approval. ❌ Avoid Citation Suggestions for Personal Gain Suggest citations only if they are genuinely relevant to the research. 🔗 Want more insights on peer reviewing? Visit COPE Guidelines and Elsevier’s Peer Review Guide. 🔄 Share this post to inspire your network to excel in peer reviewing! Does this align with your expectations?

Are you reviewing a research paper for the first time? 🤔 Peer review is the backbone of academic publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of research. A well-structured review improves a manuscript and strengthens your critical evaluation skills. However, not all feedback is helpful! Let's see the difference between constructive and destructive comments: ❌ Destructive feedback: "This paper is terrible and not worth publishing." "Your methodology is wrong. Redo the entire study." ✅ Constructive feedback: “The study lacks clarity in its objectives. Consider explicitly stating them in the introduction.” “The statistical analysis could be improved by including confidence intervals for better precision.” Providing clear, actionable suggestions makes a difference! Let's examine the key steps to conduct an effective peer review. 1. Assess the invitation carefully: - Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise before accepting. - Confirm that you have sufficient time to provide a detailed and timely review. 2. Understand the journal's guidelines: - Familiarize yourself with the journal's scope, formatting, and expectations. - Identify whether it follows single-blind, double-blind, or open peer review. 3. Conduct an initial read-through: - Read the paper first without making notes to get an overall impression. - Identify major strengths, weaknesses, and ethical concerns. 4. Evaluate the research question & significance: - Evaluate whether the study addresses a significant research gap. - Verify that the hypothesis is clear, well-justified, and relevant. 5. Assess the methodology & data: - Ensure the study design, sample size, and analysis methods are appropriate. Verify that the methodology is sufficiently detailed to ensure reproducibility. 6. Analyze the results & interpretation: - Verify whether the findings are backed by data and not overstated. - Identify biases, inconsistencies, or unsupported claims. 7. Review the clarity & organization: - Ensure the writing is clear, concise, and logically structured. - Identify areas where explanations or transitions need improvement. 8. Check citations & ethical compliance: - Confirm all sources are credible, properly cited, and up to date. - Identify any issues related to plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or self-citations. 9. Write a constructive & balanced review: - Provide specific feedback with actionable suggestions for improvement. - Maintain a respectful, objective, and professional tone. 10. Submit your review on time: - Structure your review clearly and prioritize major concerns first. - Double-check for clarity, professionalism, and grammatical accuracy. Bonus takeaway: Recommend acceptance, minor/major revisions, or rejection with clear reasoning. 🔍 Peer reviewing is a skill that improves with practice. How do you approach reviewing a research paper? Share your thoughts! 👇🔥

Would you like to become a Peer Reviewer? Below is a comprehensive guide for PhD students and early-career researchers to become one. If you are a PhD student or early career researcher, one of the powerful ways to grow fast in your field is to be a peer reviewer. Why? Peer reviewing sharpens your critical thinking, helps you stay updated with the latest research in your domain, and builds your credibility in the academic world. It also shows journal editors, senior colleagues and researchers that you are serious about contributing to your field, not just publishing in it. So, how do you get started? I have detailed a simple roadmap based on my personal experience and insights from Elsevier’s Certified Peer Reviewer course. From January to present, I have reviewed over 10 manuscripts for top-tier journals covering sustainable aviation fuels, biofuels and renewable energy. 1. Understand What Peer Review Means. Peer review is beyond spotting typos or checking references in manuscripts. It’s a responsibility. When you review a paper, you are acting as a gatekeeper for your field. Your goal is to help editors decide whether a manuscript should be published, revised, or rejected and to give the authors constructive feedback they can use to improve. It’s not about being harsh. It’s about being honest, fair, and helpful. 2. Build Your Profile So Journal Editors Can Find You. You don’t need to wait until you're a tenured professor to review papers. Many journals are open to early-career reviewers, especially if your research aligns with the submission topic. Here is how to boost your chances of being invited: a. Publish: Even one or two papers in a reputable journal can put you on an editor’s radar. b. Make yourself visible: Keep your ORCID, Publons (Web of Science Reviewer Profile), and LinkedIn updated. c. Network: Let your supervisor or senior colleagues know you are interested in being a reviewer. Editors often ask them to recommend reviewers. d. Take the training: Completing Elsevier’s Certified Peer Reviewer Course is a smart move. It shows editors you are serious and trained. 3. Say Yes to That First Invitation Once you are invited by a journal editor, accept if the topic matches your expertise and you have time to do a proper job. A rushed or careless review can hurt your reputation. Reviewers usually get 2–4 weeks to complete a report. If you are unsure about accepting, ask yourself these questions: - Do I understand the core topic? - Can I give this the time it deserves? - Do I have any conflicts of interest? 4. Follow the 5 Stages of Peer Review According to Elsevier, peer reviewing typically follows these stages: - Stage 1: Invitation You will receive an email from the editor asking you to review a paper. Accept or decline promptly. - Stage 2: Evaluation Read the paper carefully. Make notes. Ask: Is the research question clear? Is the methodology sound? Are the results convincing? Continue in the comments (Very important)